WARNING: This post may be triggering to survivors of rape and/or birth trauma. There are also links within the post which some may find triggering.

I found this post yesterday over on Spilt Milk about how birth trauma and rape culture are linked and I have to say I couldn’t agree with it more. Pregnancy, birth and Motherhood are states in which strangers, medical professionals and well just about everyone, find themselves entitled to question women’s autonomy, to assault women without question and what is more- this assault is socially mandates as acceptable. Pregnant women find themselves met with a barrage of questions from strangers, find total strangers, as well as acquaintances touching and stroking their body without any form of permission. Labouring women find themselves subjected to medical procedures and bodily invasion and assault with out any form of explanation offered or consent required.  Mothers find their parenting choices routinely questioned and opined over in public spaces. These are all examples of the expansion of a culture which views womens bodies and minds as both disposable and in need of guidance and constraint.

There is only one other time where someone can have a medical procedure performed upon them without their personal, informed consent- when an individual is deemed to be unable to understand the consequences of their decision and when a court has mandated that said individual must have decisions made for them.  Women have told me, and my friends and regularly post on the net of the ways in which they have been ignored as they labour. Just this morning I heard the story of a woman who was not asked her consent when a midwife performed an episiotomy. There’s a word for that- ASSAULT.

Whilst there are plenty of situations where medical procedures must be performed quickly during labour and delivery it takes less than 10 seconds to say ” Jane, the baby has X problem and I need to make a cut to help the baby deliver very quickly. Is that OK?”. Checking with independent midwives and NHS midwife friends has also assured me that certainly there is no situation where they as individuals would ever not ask a woman before performing a procedure.

It seems clear to me at least that the arena of motherhood, beginning at pregnancy has so much work that needs doing in it. Let’s make a start by remembering that pregnant women and mothers are people too, and respecting the bodily autonomy of those women. Next time you find yourself about to stroke the bump of a pregnant woman or comment on how heavily pregnant she is, do us all as favour- don’t!

Tags: , ,

A call for papers comes via the Filament magazine FB page, Feminst Porn Studies is looking for papers between 3000 and 7000 words from both sex industry workers and academic writers.

Oxford University’s Left Review is looking for submissions for Issue Three, which gives you two weeks to submit if you have any sociological, radical politics or economics papers.

When it comes to Filament magazine, I’m still in two minds about it. Yes, I like looking at sexy men and yes Ii think women should be able to access porn if they want to.  What I can’t actually bridge is the gap between the following-  when did I start thinking it was OK to view men as sex objects when most feminist thought dictates that women must not be seen purely as sex objects? Surely as a result,  neither should men.  What is this female gaze discussion all about?

The female gaze can be seen as  binary to the male gaze, but how do we truly know what the female gaze is?  If it is the  opposite to the male gaze then where is the space for Lesbians and Trans men? I know that all men do not not desire the slim blonde identikit archetype offered by the media, and all women do not desire the chiseled  jaw six pack ‘hunk’ also offered by the mainstream.  Nor are all women ‘secret bisexuals’, so why are the main images in this magazine oiled up and laid out for the ladies pleasure?

As a critic of post-feminism, I could simply say that this is  a new and improved way to control women’s sexuality, to mould us as sexually subservient to men. Don’t be fooled by embracing the so-called power of what I truly think the female gaze is . The male gaze is digested in the consciousness of women, who then internalise and invert this gaze because ultimately  men have power. To seize this power you must be seen as this veracious, ironic being who sees women as the media do- as a consumable product . Ariel Levy in her excellent investigation ‘ Female Chauvinist Pigs’ explores this notion within both heterosexual and homosexual culture and illustrates this perfectly.

As a woman in the ‘real’ world, having been socially conditioned to what is ‘hot’ and what is not (lets not be naive here), maybe Filament is a good  thing. I enjoy reading the feeds on FB  asking for what kind of image the readers would like to see ( I can’t help but think that it may sink into a readers boyfriends/husbands expo).  Most of the articles are pretty good and I don’t think I’d ever put it under my bed to avoid detection. That said, can any sexual objectification ever be justified?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Shoes, Glorious Shoes!

As regular readers will know I have three children. The youngest is a baby, whom I delight in dressing as gender neutrally as I can manage, which quite often isn’t very gender neutral, because I can’t seem to find gender neutral baby clothes on the high street that aren’t brown. My older two kids have reached an age where gender is something they are exploring- we have a lot of conversations about whether boys can hold hands with other boys (yes, if they want to), can men wear skirts (see previous answer) and can women be doctors (see previous two answers!). The socialisation into a patriarchal society which is administered through the school system has a lot to answer for. Oddly enough, the worst recent example I have of all of this is what happened when I took my children shoe shopping.

Kids go through shoes ridiculously fast. Kid’s shoes are expensive. Experience has taught me that the amount of money I spend  makes no difference to how quickly my kids manage to put holes in their shoes, so I long ago gave up buying Clarks shoes, unless they are on sale. This time shoe shopping however, it wasn’t the prices that concerend me. It was the HIGH HEELS.

My daughter is 7. Like many of her peers she loves things that are a sickly shade of pink, and Girls Aloud. She thinks Hello Kitty is the best thing ever, and Hannah Montana is cool. I’m not fond of any of the above, but I can generally manage to tread that delicate line between making sure she isn’t totally socially ostracised and explaining to her why maybe aspiring to  be a pop star isn’t such a good plan. Walking into the shoe shop and being confronted with pink, sequined high heels in a children’s size 2 (they were also in smaller sizes) was a bit much.

If it had just been that one pair of shoes that would also have been ok- you can justify that as a ridiculous marketing ploy, or dress up shoes, or something. But no. There was in fact an entire range of high heeled shoes aimed at children my daughters age. Which were all also available in smaller sizes. This included school shoes.

I’m gob smacked and seething. This pornification of our kids has got to stop. Regardless of the immense social damage that dressing little girls in high heels and “Future WAG” t shirts causes, what about the damage to their bodies? We know, that high heels are damaging, and any heel over 2 cm increases the risk of twisted ankles, ligament damage and back problems. Why would you do that to your child?

There’s another aspect to this- if little girls are wearing high heels, they won’t be running around playing tag and football and more physical games. Instantly high heels restrict the games girls can play and the activities they can engage in and further hardens the gender barrier in the playground.  I’d like to ask everyone, parent or no, to write to any shoe shop asking them to not stock high heeled shoes fo children, on the grounds that they are misogynist, damaging to health and lead to the increased sexualisation of children. Maybe we can use consumer power to help end this hideous practice!

The oh so sexy cancer?

The oh so fabulous Laurie Penny of Penny Red fame is now blogging over at New Statesman and has written a fabulous piece about Breast Cancer Awareness. It’s somewhat serendipitous because I was planning on writing something very similar following an argument on my Facebook after I busted apart the stupidity of the irritating ” I like it on the..” Facebook status meme, which according to an old school friend is a “fun, flirty way to raise breast cancer awareness and wind up the boys”!

I’m sorry did I just fall into a bizzare alternate dimension? Last time I checked breast cancer is a life threatening and serious disease which according to Cancer Research UK kills around 12,000 women a year in the UK. It also kills around 70 men a year, and current figures indicate that approximately 1 in 9 women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime .

Breast Cancer isn’t sexy or flirty or pink. We shouldn’t be raising awareness by using stupid cryptic social networking messages thinly disguised as innuendo. Breast Cancer kills people. It maims them. It puts individuals through therapies and surgeries which are physically and mentally draining and grueling. It puts strain on families and kinship networks. Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in the UK, and causes the highest number of cancer related deaths after lung cancer. It isn’t a joke.

Here’s how to raise awareness of breast cancer. Talk. Talk to your friends, and your sisters, and mothers and daughters. Talk to your male friends and brothers and partners and fathers. They need to know too, because they too can get breast cancer and they too will be deeply affected if someone in their life is diagnosed with breast cancer. Check your breasts monthly and go to the doctor as soon as you find a change.

And finally, I refer to this heartbreaking letter published in Salon, from a woman named Sally who has Breast Cancer. Do as she says people and stop playing stupid, insulting games while she dies.

The wonderful Anji of “Shut Up, Sit Down” has a brilliant new piece up over on The F Word titled “Why cis attendees of RTN are letting trans women down”. For those of you unfamiliar with the argument, every year London Feminist Network host a Reclaim The Night March, protesting Violence against Women (VW). I’ve been once in 2008, and found it an uplifting experience but one which also left me somewhat uncomfortable after hostility between LFN and members of a Sex Workers Rights group arose.  I’ve also noticed that every year multiple feminist groups call upon LFN to explicitly state that trans women are welcome on the march, and every year LFN fail to state this. It’s a horrific example of transphobia, which I don’t think can or should be ignored any longer. Anji explains why LFN need to be explicit in their welcoming of trans women, and I would urge all feminists, cis or trans, to call on LFN to be explicit in their stataements regarding who is and isn’[t welcome to march with them. I would even go so far as to urge feminists to boycott the London March this year- many cities have RTN marches which welcome all self identifying women- Oxford has one on October 22nd – and so in order to put an end to the hideous transphobia routinely perpetrated by LFN, go to one of the smaller marches. That might seem a bit extreme but we aren’t good feminists or allies if we ignore, and are complicit in the abuse of our trans sisters.

Tags: , , , , ,

I’m going to marry Benedict Cumberbatch.

Admittedly, the star of the BBC’s Sherlock series may not yet be aware of this fact. In fact, strictly speaking, he hasn’t actually ever met me. But that hasn’t stopped me publicising my matrimonial aspirations on Facebook, Twitter and in numerous text messages to my friends this week.

However, don’t worry, you don’t need to buy your hat just yet. And in the unlikely event of Olivia Poulet reading this, she can breathe a sigh of relief. Because, obviously, I am not really going to marry Le Cumberbatch (he’s not really my type and I don’t even believe in the concept of marriage), it’s just one of those metaphors which women of my age find so easy to trot out about any male actor/musician/writer/sportsperson whose work they admire: “I want to have his babies”, “I love him” etc. It’s a throwback to the days when we used to doodle our favourite pop stars’ names on our pencil cases during the boring bits of Double Maths.

It annoys and embarrasses me that, after years of identifying as a feminist, I still thoughtlessly do this (although I don’t think I’m alone – many of my friends, including those who are already happily married and even some who are lesbians, are equally guilty). Because I’m acutely aware that the romantic ideal of “The Hero I’m Going To Marry” is one of the things that often holds women back, both from aiming to achieve themselves, and from fully appreciating the achievements of other women. While boys of my generation spent their Maths lessons dreaming about being a guitarist/actor/footballer, we girls wasted too much time dreaming about marrying a guitarist/actor/footballer, and that may be one of the reasons why so few of us got round to actually picking up a guitar or kicking a ball around the park. It may also be one of the reasons why so few female pop stars achieved the popularity or financial success of e.g. Duran Duran, Kajagoogoo, Bros, East 17, or even U2, The Police or The Smiths – we might have quite liked Michelle Shocked or Tracy Chapman’s music, but as we couldn’t process down the aisle with them with the sound of Mendelssohn blaring in the background, they were never really going to become an all-consuming passion.

But have things moved on for today’s teenaged and tweenaged girls? Since the rise of the Spice Girls and All Saints in the 90s, it does seem to me that young girls have been far more likely than previous generations to look to female role models as their heroes. I am ambivalent about whether this is a better attitude than that of my generation. There is no doubt that the word “career” has become firmly embedded in girls’ vocabularies in a way it wasn’t when I was eleven, twelve. There’s a pragmatic openness about the capitalist way in which the entertainment industry works, which I don’t remember being the case in the ‘70s and ‘80s, when I was growing up, and female stars seem to be at the forefront of that. In a sense, when I see eleven-year-olds idolising Cheryl Cole or Katie Price or Lady Gaga and I know that they know full well that these are hard-nosed business women who have consciously launched themselves as global brands, carefully charted and controlled their ascent to fame and riches, it does seem that girls today are more attuned to taking control of their lives and having ambitions of their own, shallow and materialistic as those ambitions so often are.

But, quite aside from the narrowly materialistic nature of the “success” and “empowerment” to which these girls aspire, there is, of course, also the body image issues that so often go with it. Girls seem to learn in the cradle that the route to a successful career is being “sexy”, moulding yourself to please the male gaze – primary school children now identify “sexy” as the attribute they most want to have and pre-pubescents dream of having boob jobs. Is there much difference between aspiring to marry a footballer and aspiring to be an independently wealthy pop star or supermodel who marries a footballer? Frankly, I’d almost rather we were back in the days when every female twelve-year-old’s dream was eloping to the Las Vegas Wedding chapel with Adam Ant. At least they were expressing an appreciation for either his art, for what he could do, or for his body and the fact that it pleased their female gaze.

But better, by far, to jettison both the belief that you need a high-octane career that brings you fame and money in order to prove your self-worth and the belief that your self-worth depends on bagging yourself an alpha male. Best to aspire to do things for their intrinsic value and for the pleasure of developing your own skills, the way that the boys in my class did when they tried to play guitar like Johnny Marr or kick a football like Kevin Keegan.

So, actually, no, I don’t want to marry Benedict Cumberbatch, I just really wish I could act like Benedict Cumberbatch. Or even better – act like Josette Simon or Fiona Shaw.

Update from Andieberry

Apologies to all,  for you may have noticed the lack of posts from Suzi and myself. Well,  I have just finished my SPE degree and Suzi is in the midst of catching up on work. Tradition dictates that Suzi does a thorough investigation of subject matter and so she decided to do her dissertation on the Politics of Breastfeeding, which naturally, included having a baby to perform test analysis on the subject! I did my dissertation on the subject of Post-Feminism from a  radical feminist approach which,  once its marked, I will condense and post here.
So at the moment (like a lot of people) I’m going through the misery that is job hunting in a double dip recession, so in between the endless job search I can actually manage to poke my head into the real world. I realise that I’ve had the privilege of having three years out to learn,  study and develop my own ideas. I have met amazing people that I otherwise wouldn’t have met (Suzi being one of them), have taken part in events such as the Ruskin@40 Womens conference where I took some academic baby steps into a group discussion about what post-feminism is, I also listened and watched in awe as Beatrix Campbell took my economics tutor down a peg!

Real life sucks but its up to all the bloggers , the off-line activists and networks to keep questioning, profiling and lobbying for full equality between the sexes.

As the election campaign gather pace, I am feeling increasingly disturbed by the role party leaders’ wives seem expected to play and find the “Campaigning? Me? I’ve got my own job to do!” approach of Miriam Gonzalez Durantez extremely refreshing.

One reason why the emphasis placed on Sarah Brown and Samantha Cameron in Labour’s and Conservative’s campaigns respectively worries me is that it strikes me as undermining the hard-fought idea of married women as autonomous individuals with financial independence and an agenda of their own. Sometimes I feel we’ve all entered a time warp back to the 1950s, when it was normal for married women to be expected to act as unpaid employees of their husbands’ firm, the standard of corporate entertaining which they supplied, free of charge, reflecting on their husband. And don’t get me started on the swathes of column inches given over to dissecting Michelle Obama’s and Carla Bruni’s fashion choices, as if the First Lady opting for a cardigan instead of a jacket is somehow going to have a major impact on an entire nation’s fortunes.

Another reason why the politicians’ WAGs phenomenon does my head in, though, is that I feel the move we have witnessed in the past couple of decades away from the grey-suited, impersonal, eminence grises who seemed to take the top political jobs in yesteryear towards “family man” party leaders is a manifestation of a faux feminism, which seems to make the concerns of women central to politics, while actually marginalising female politicians still further. All the major parties at the moment seem desperate to have at their helm a youngish married man with a feisty (but not too feisty!) wife and young family, the thinking seeming to be that this will appeal to the female voter – a man with an outspoken wife and hands-on experience of bringing up young children will understand women’s needs and concerns. “No need to have women politicians, then”, though, seems to me to be the unspoken, sinister subtext to all this. We’re supposed to think that by voting for Gordon or David, we’re actually voting for the Gordon/Sarah or David/Samantha team, so we don’t need to worry about having female representatives in Parliament – our man at the top, so in touch with his feminine side, so adept at changing nappies, can speak for us girls, as well as for the blokes. It seems to me that, if parties continue to focus on the Young Family Man as the only credible model of leader, women will soon stand even less chance of being chosen for the top job than they did in the 1970s.

And it’s not just female politicians who could be discriminated against if the Young Family Man becomes the de rigueur model party leader. While I, obviously, applaud the fact that the impact on families seems to have become more of a concern when politicians address economic and social policies and recognise that getting and keeping the needs of mothers and children on the political agenda is a vital part of the feminist struggle, the fact still remains that not everybody in society is a parent of school-age children. Older people, gay people, single people, childless people all potentially face exclusion from senior political posts if the 40-Something Family Guy becomes the default position. We only have to look at the political fate of Sir Menzies Campbell to see how older politicians already face discrimination. And, while it’s clearly much easier for openly gay men and women to be selected as parliamentary candidates and for ministerial positions than it was thirty years ago, I do wonder if we’ve in some respects regressed from the position we were in back in the 1970s, when Edward Heath, a middle-aged, unmarried, childless man, was elected party leader and Prime Minister.

I recently advertised for a language exchange partner on the internet. You probably know the kind of set-up I mean – they are native speakers of the foreign language I’m trying to learn who live in my town and want to improve their English, and the idea is that we meet up on a regular basis to practise our conversational skills in each other’s language. I soon received a number of replies to my ad, including one from a couple in their 20s who seemed very friendly, lived close to me, and it didn’t take us long to set up a date to meet.

The thing is, I’m well-versed in internet safety etiquette. I know all the rules backwards: don’t give away too much personal information about yourself online, never give out your home address, never take what strangers say about themselves online at face value and, above all, never meet up with someone you’ve met online in real life in a private home. Always set up the first meeting in a public space, like a pub or café. And yet, when my new online pals suggested we have our first meeting at their flat, I immediately agreed, even though the idea made me feel anxious and uncomfortable.

I think one of the reasons I didn’t insist on meeting on neutral ground is that I do tend to be a tad on the neurotic side – I’m the kind of person who goes through a nightly ritual of checking the inside of the wardrobe and under the bed for intruders and regularly exits an Underground carriage the minute a young man carrying a rucksack gets on, just in case he happens to have a bomb in it. It’s a side of myself I’m trying to battle with, so I didn’t want to indulge my paranoia here.

And maybe I was being overcautious – after all, while my love life is solidly vanilla, my more sexually adventurous friends seem to spend half their time in the bedrooms of people they’ve only just met and no-one’s taken an axe to them yet.

But deep down, I suspect that the real reasons I completely ignored the ground rules I’d decided to set were because:

(a) like – I’m guessing – a lot of women, I have a horror of seeming rude, of putting people to any inconvenience. They preferred to meet at their home – who was I to say different?

(b) I am also reluctant to be viewed as the local nutter. I know through personal experience that women who insist on taking taxis short distances at night instead of walking, refuse to open the door to strangers or demand to see IDs from tradesmen, tend to get treated like they have acute psychiatric problems, even those are all things which we are officially advised to do.

On my way over to my language partners’ place, my anxiety grew. As I walked the couple of miles to their address, I mentally replayed what I knew about this couple and all sorts of innocent things they’d mentioned in their e-mails suddenly seemed to take on a sinister significance. They’d seemed very eager – suspiciously eager? – to set up a meeting as soon as possible. They’d made a big deal about the fact that they were a couple and had attached a photo, but that’s exactly the kind of thing a solitary rapist or people-trafficker would say to try and put his potential victim at ease and the photo could have been of anybody – any idiot with a search engine could find a picture of A Random Couple and pass it off as himself and his non-existent wife. After my first e-mail, they’d Googled me and found my Facebook page, which hadn’t seemed odd at the time, but now started to appear macabrely stalkerish. And, come to think of it, all their e-mails had been in English, so I had no proof that they even spoke a word of the language which they claimed was their native tongue. Before long, I could hear Kirsty Young’s voice in my head, appealing to the public to help solve my murder on Crimewatch.

Well, I eventually reached their block of flats and, as you’ve probably gathered from the fact that I’m here writing this blog, they weren’t axe murderers: fortunately, they were exactly who they said they were. They were, in fact, utterly charming, I spent a highly enjoyable couple of hours with them and I’m hopeful that the language exchange partnership will go swimmingly.

But this experience has, yet again, underlined for me how, despite talking the feminist talk and knowing the theory, in actuality I’m incredibly easily swayed by media crime scaremongering, yet equally easily convinced that, as a woman, my right to set boundaries which make feel safe and comfortable is negligible and that I am obliged at all times and in all places to accommodate others.

I wonder how many other women feel continually torn between two totally unreasonable and utterly conflicting societal dictats – on the one hand, we’re taught to be people-pleasers who shouldn’t inconvenience others with “selfish”, “neurotic”, “rude” demands, on the other we’re bombarded with victim-blaming propaganda that suggests that if we fail to observe a 24-hour curfew and apply for a full CRB check on anyone we speak to, should something untoward happen to us, it is somehow entirely our fault.

As an avid Spotify user, I am currently being subjected to the Dell Mini 10 Notebook advert several times a day and with every listen I am increasingly awestruck by how many crass stereotypes they manage to conflate into one short audio ad.

For those of you fortunate enough not to have heard it, it’s promoting a new mini-computer (I think) which comes in a range of pretty colours. And that’s the main angle they’re putting on it – the colour choice. So far, so inoffensive. Doesn’t seem much of a USP for a piece of technical kit, but that’s up to them. To demonstrate the different colours, they play the same song in various styles. Black is a male singer fronting a metal band. Blue is a laidback, male blues singer. Pink is…and I’m sure you guessed this… synthetic-sounding girl-fronted bubble-gum pop.

To give them their credit, it is a resourceful attempt to solve the difficult problem of how to convey colours in an audio ad.

BUT, they’ve confronted us with a whole ganglion of simplistic equations. Pink = female = in the minority = cheesy bubblegum pop = fluffy = not serious…

Maybe I read too much into this. After all, it’s just one tiny drop in the ocean of patronising gender stereotypes that constitutes modern advertising. And, in any case, I almost prefer totally blatantly sexist ads to the kind of faux feminism of adverts like that one they had on before Christmas (I completely forget what was being advertised, but I’ve a feeling it could have been a supermarket? or perhaps a stock cube?), where the man was left flummoxed, faced with the arduous task of serving dinner to his children one evening, while his partner went out to a party/evening class/some other social event, calling “You’re babysitting!” with a cheeky wink as she sashayed out of the front door. Fortunately, help was at hand, as here’s one she had prepared earlier – said partner had put a shepherd’s pie/casserole/whatsoever in the oven before she went. But the hapless chap’s troubles with assertive women aren’t over, as, when he tries to pass the dinner off as the work of his own fair hands, his primary-age daughter rolls her eyes and looks at him patronisingly. “Wow!” We’re obviously supposed to think. “Girl power! Feisty mother and kick-ass daughter shoved it to him good and proper!”

Except, hang on a minute…since when has LOOKING AFTER YOUR OWN CHILDREN constituted “babysitting”? The advert seems to posit as some kind of glorious, amusing victory for womankind the fact that they can cajole/manipulate/order their menfolk into taking on domestic responsibilities once in every blue moon. And once again, in an apparent compliment to women’s capabilities, male uselessness at domestic tasks is constructed as a basic fact of biology – flattering women into believing that unpaid domestic work will inevitably always be their job, because they possess a shepherd’s pie gene which men sadly lack.

Still, for me, the nadir of bone-headed advertising has to be the Christmas 2008 campaign for an allegedly low-calorie (=small) chocolate bar under the charming tagline “Goodwill to all women”. Right, Because ALL women are always permanently on a diet and NO men ever are? And ALL women adore chocolate? Tossers.

« Older entries § Newer entries »